Talk:Piers Plowman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Piers Plowman is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Top | This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] NPOV
I removed the following statement:
- generally considered the earliest great work of English literature,
This is inherently POV, and, if I'm being honest, wrong. No article should have this sentence, but if any did I think it would be Beowulf. Rje (I made this comments months ago, I suppose I should still sign it)
I'm not sure you're right here. Beowulf is also claimed as part of the German/Teutonic Tradition so has a more ambiguous status as a work of Eng Lit. Piers Ploughman is certainly ONE of the earliest great works of English Literature, but you'd have to check it with dates of Chaucer's work and pieces like Sir Gawain & The Green Knight before you could say it is the earliest. I love it and think it a truly neglected masterpiece of poetry and mysticism. I don't think its visionary branch of Christianity has yet been truly understood. Ah well. ThePeg 23:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- I certainly would not suggest that Piers Plowman is anything but a "great work" - if one really must use such a label - but I do suggest that it's status as the earliest is inherently ambiguous. Obviously there are those who differ, but I would suggest that Old English literature is clearly a part of what we may call the English corpus - yes Beowulf is a part of the Germanic tradition, but that does not mean it is not English (Sir Gawain is part of what was a French tradition, but I know of noone who would call it a French work). Also, as you say, not knowing the relative dates of the composition of Piers Plowman and Sir Gawain would make such a comment somewhat misleading. Rje 16:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Information on Editions
Is someone up to providing at the end of the article summary information information on the various editions, especially with regard to the language they use? For someone who's been trying to buy a version in the original Middle English, this information would be useful. Some versions clearly state i their titles that they are translations or renderings into Modern English. Others are less clear. Usually one would expect "critical edition" to be in the original, and that seems to be true with the Everyman edition, edited by A.V.C. Schmidt. On the other hand, the Norton Critical Edition, despite the name, is a translation.
The article does an excellent job of discussing recensions and publication but still lacks a summary of this information. Interlingua 13:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Part of the problem is that there are so many editions of Piers Plowman, further complicated by the fact that there are three or four principle versions of the poem, although most editions tend to be of either the B or C texts. Another issue is that the editions most widely used by scholars - the parallel text edition by W.W. Skeat and, more recently, Carl Schmidt - are not readily available to most readers. This is a rather roundabout way of saying that it is no easy task to account for all of the modern editions of Piers Plowman in a manner that would be both readily usable by our readers and compliant with our POV policies. Rje 16:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Plot
The article concentrates almost exclusively on the different editions but says almost nothing about the content of the book itself. When I look up "Piers Plowman" in an encyclopedia I would except to find a summary of the plot and an analysis of the style, the allegories, metaphors etc. Could someone please add at least in short what "Piers Plowman" is about? --Proofreader 07:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think I was the one who added that, but I don't recall. It's done now anyway. Certainly could be expanded. Dan Knauss (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Catholic mind
"[Piers Plowman]" is told from the point of view of the medieval Catholic mind."
That really isnt true. I wont change it untill i see some feedback, but most would probably agree that the mind behind The Vision is decidely Protestant (given his clearly unhappy view of the medieval Church). Clearly he is not Protestant in the eventual sense of the word, but he was latched onto by later ones as having "predicted" thier movement, and thus his views and opinions are closer tot hers then the current article asserts Eric Forest (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- It is decidedly true. The author/s were both medieval and Catholic, there being no choice in either matter. Criticism and even dissent do not imply a wish to disassociate. Consider the illogic of your last sentence. If you admit the author is clearly not Protestant and absolutely could not be given that there were no Protestants in his time, then how can later Protestants be granted the authority to retrospectively conscript him as a precursor merely because they think he "predicted" their views? That was a point of view with certain cultural/political/religious motives and agendas; it is of historical interest as such, but it can't be taken as a critical judgment. If you want to argue that the author/s of PP were Lollard or crypto-Lollard, that's different. There are further debates over the extent to which Lollards and their ideas survived into and impacted the English Reformation. There is simply no expert on these subjects, however, who will say there is a clear, continuous line from one to the next, especially in the a very direct lineage of people, groups, and doctrines. Dan Knauss (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
